Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our User Agreement and Privacy Policy.

Slideshare uses cookies to improve functionality and performance, and to provide you with relevant advertising. If you continue browsing the site, you agree to the use of cookies on this website. See our Privacy Policy and User Agreement for details.

I just want to mention that we have to integer people into the systems so that they can develop , otherwise only by working on the system cannot make sense if there isnt progress at the human-side. but it's a very helpfull presentation in which we can gain insight into typical theories of HR.

@Harold van Garderen. I respectfully disagree with your assumption that "Both were from in the same Cybernetics scene and build on the same insights." I see quite a few differences. I would argue that most "insights" in the Organize for Complexity paper are rather different than those to be found in VSM. I disagree that "the VSM is the complete picture and thus it is complicated". As far as I can tell, VSM hasn´t significantly evolved in breadth or depth, since Beer. Neither has introduction in practice, as far as I can tell from anecdotal evidence. From this, I find it hard to conclude that VSM is a starting point, as you put it, to create complexity-robust organizations. I find VSM, while delivering some key insight, is not quite fitting to solve real-world problems, for very specific reasons apparently ignored by its community. We have to take another path - such as the one outlined in Organize for Complexity. This is not to say that Beer´s cybernetics is flawed. It´s just that we have to use what´s useful.

It is true that the VSM is presented in too abstract terms. But from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niklas_Luhmann it seems Luhmann and Beer were part of the same group in the '70's. Both were from in the same Cybernetics scene and build on the same insights. So my take is that the VSM is the complete picture and thus it is complicated, but when one works with an experienced consultant it is the most powerful starting point I've seen thus far. From it most other system methods can be derived. And the ones that can't are probably wrong (for that context).

@Harold van Garderen Thank you, Harold. If you liked the paper, take a look at the book of the same title as well. It offers 3 times the content of the paper. I know the Vaible Systems Model by Stafford Beer. I do believe, however, that the systems theory approach that we use here, and that originated from Niklas Luhmann´s work, is far more powerful, in that it is easily explained, and at the same time allows for incredibly profound and detailed application in organizations. VSM, in comparison, seems overly abstract and not easily "translatable". What do you think?

Organize for Complexity, part I+II - Special Edition Paper

1.
How to make work work again.
How to break the barrier of command-and-control –
and create the peak-performance, networked organization
BetaCodex Network Associates
Niels Pflaeging & Silke Hermann & Lars Vollmer & Valérya Carvalho
Illustrations by Pia Steinmann
BetaCodex Network White Paper No. 12 & 13, June 2012
Make it real!
ORGANIZE
FOR
COMPLEXITY
special

2.
This paper addresses fundamental questions of interest to
business owners, managers, professionals and change agents
Don't we all ask ourselves questions like:
• How can organizations deal with growing complexity?
• How to adjust a growing organization, without falling into
the bureaucracy trap?
• How to become more capable of adapting to new
circumstances?
• How to overcome existing barriers to performance,
innovation and growth?
• How to become an organization more fit to human
beings, and achieve higher engagement?
• How to produce profound change, without hitting the
barrier?
In this paper, we argue that in order to address these
issues, we must create organizations that are truly robust
for complexity, as well as fit for human beings. We also
discuss how that can be done. You will learn about concepts
that allow to design entire organizations for complexity,
regardless of size, age, industry, country or culture.

4.
Frederick Taylor’s grand idea and how management was invented:
The division between thinkers and doers
“Thinkers”/
Managers
strategize, steer,
control, decide
“Doers”/
Workers
execute, obey,
follow
In 1911, Frederick Taylor published his landmark book
The Principles of Scientific Management. He proposed
management as a “revolution” that would eliminate the
productivity constraints of the industrial-age
organization. Taylorism achieved just that.
What Taylor pioneered was the idea of dividing an
organization between thinking people (managers) and
executing people (workers) – thus legitimating the
management profession as that of “thinking principals
of the non-thinking human resources”. Taylor also
introduced functional division to shop-floor work.
Taylor's concepts were soon decried as inhumane and
non-scientific, his consulting methods as ineffective.
But hierarchical/functional division became widely
adopted after his death, in 1915, his principles were
applied to non-industrial, non-shop-floor work.
Management, as we know it, is not much different from
what Taylor proposed a century ago. In dynamic and
complex markets, however, command-and-control
turns toxic for both organizational performance and
human/social advancement.
We call tayloristic management Alpha.

5.
The price of simplicity: Tayloristic division causes “managed“
organizations to experience three systemic “gaps“
3pm: Thinking
9am: Doing
2 The Functional Gap
Functional division produces a
need of managed/imposed
coordination through process
control, interfaces, planning, rules,
standards, hierarchic power etc.
3 The Time Gap
Personal division between
thinking thinkers and non-
thinking doers causes need
for managed/imposed roles,
complicated IT, strategy,
forecasting, and planning
1 The Social Gap
Hierarchical division and top-
down control cause an erosion
of social/group pressure and
dialog, and a bias towards
management by numbers and
leadership by fear
None of this feels good. None of this is value-creating. The three gaps all lead to waste.

6.
Formal part of
value creation
Solution:
machine
Dynamic part
of value
creation
Solution: man
sluggishness/low dynamic high dynamichigh dynamic
The historical course of market dynamics
and the recent rise of highly dynamic and complex markets
The dominance of high dynamics and complexity is neither good nor bad. It‘s a historical fact.
t1970/80 today
Age of
crafts manu-
facturing
Age of
tayloristic
industry
Age of
global
markets
1850/1900
Spacious markets,
little competition
Local markets,
high customi-
zation
Outperformers exercise
market pressure over
conventional companies
We call the graph shown here the “Taylor Bathtub”.

7.
The difference between the complicated and the complex
• Complicated systems operate in
standardized ways. Here, imprecision is
diminished, non-objectivity and
uncertainty are reduced as far as
possible. Can be described through non-
ambiguous cause-and-effect chains Are
externally controllable.
• Any high-precision machine is
complicated: Everything is done to avoid
imprecision/to increase precision. A
watch, for example, is calibrated to
diminish mistakes, uncertainty and
illusion. It is configured to supply
objective data, certainty and a minimum
of illusion.
• Complex systems have presence or
participation of living creatures. They are
living systems - that's why they may
change at any moment. Such systems are
only externally observable – not
controllable.
• A complex systems´ behavior is non-
predictable. Here, it's natural that there is a
level of error, uncertainty and illusion that
is much higher than in complicated
systems.
A complex system may possess elements
that can operate in standardized ways, but
their interaction would be constantly
changing, in discontinuous ways

8.
Consequences of complexity:
The importance of mastery for problem-solving
The only “thing” capable of effectively dealing with complexity is human beings.
What matters in complexity, thus, as far as problem-solving is concerned, is
neither tools, nor standardization, nor rules, nor structures, nor processes – all
those things that used to serve us well in the industrial age and its dull markets.
In complexity, the question isn’t how to solve a problem, but who can do it.
What matters now, thus, is skilful people, or people with mastery.
People with ideas.
Problem-solving in a life-less system is
about instruction. Problem–solving in
a living system is about communication.
Complexity can neither be managed, nor reduced. It can be confronted with human mastery.

9.
The improvement paradox: In complexity, working on separate
parts doesn't improve the whole. It actually damages the whole
Working on individual parts of the system
does not improve the functioning of the
whole: Because in a system, it is not so
much the parts that matter, but their fit.
What really improves a system as a whole
is working not on the parts itself, but
on the interactions between the parts.
You might call this attitude “leadership”.
Systems are not improved by tinkering with the parts, but by working on their interactions.

11.
Human nature at work - McGregor's critical distinction.
Ask yourself: which theory describes me, and people around me?
Theory X Theory Y
People need to work and want to take an inte-
rest in it. Under right conditions, they can enjoy it
People will direct themselves
towards a target that they accept
People will seek and accept responsibility,
under the right conditions
Under the right conditions, people are motiva-
ted by the desire to realize their own potential
Creativity and ingenuity are widely distributed
and grossly underused
People dislike work,
find it boring, and will avoid it if they can
People must be forced or bribed
to make the right effort
People would rather be directed than
accept responsibility, (which they avoid)
People are motivated mainly by money
and fears about their job security
Most people have little creativity - except
when it comes to getting round rules
Source: Douglas McGregor, ‘The Human Side of Enterprise’, 1960
Attitude
Direction
Responsibility
Creativity
Motivation

12.
Human nature at work: McGregor's critical distinction
Douglas McGregor, in his seminal work from 1960, distinguished between two images of
human nature, of which only one is ”true”, in that it holds up to science and available theory.
The other one, Theory X, is nothing more than a prejudice that we have about other people.
There are two reason why this theory, besides being a superstition, is commonplace. Firstly,
it reflects common thinking from our pre-democratic, pre-enlightenment past. Secondly,
while observing other people's behavior, we tend to make conclusions about their human
nature – frequently ignoring behavior-shaping context.
This matters. Because assumptions we have in our minds about other people shape our
behavior, and the way we tend to design and run organizations: if you believe in the
existence of Theory X humans, then command-and-control systems design will follow. In
order to build complexity-robust organizations, a shared view of human nature is needed.
Behavior
Human Nature
Context
Asked which theory about human
nature – X or Y – describes us,
everyone immediately knows: “I am a
Theory Y sort of person!” When asked
about other people, however, the
answer is usually not as clear cut.
Haven't we all experienced Theory X
people many times in our lives? At
work? In our organizations?

13.
The nature of motivation and why leaders cannot motivate
People are driven by motives. It is safe to say
that everyone carries all kinds of motives, to a
certain degree. Everyone thus is a “carrier of
motives”, or “intrinsically motivated”. The
specific levels or the dominance of different
motives, however, vary greatly among
individuals.
What this means for organizations, or
employers, is: they cannot motivate. Because
motivation is. The main thing that organizations
can do to stimulate performance is facilitating
options for connection between individuals
and the organization, through purpose and work.
We call the phenomenon, when an individual
connects itself voluntarily to work and an
organization, connectedness.
Unfortunately, belief in the myth of motivational
power of leadership is still widespread. Truth is:
because of motivation's intrinsic nature, leaders,
through their behavior, can only de-motivate.

14.
Introversion Extraversion
Thinking Feeling
Sensing Intuition
An individual's behavior is also strongly influenced by preferences. The concept of
“preferences” was introduced by Carl G. Jung in his pioneering work “Psychological Types”.
Attitude. Jung differentiated types firstly
according to their general attitude: Attitude
describes people's way of reacting more to
outer or inner experiences.
Decision-making “functions“. 'Heady’
individuals, who prefer to make decisions
by thinking things through, rationally using
the 'thinking function‘. 'Heart' people prefer
to evaluate and make decisions
subjectively using the ‘feeling' function.
Perceiving “functions“. We view the world
using a combination of ‘sensing' to record
the sensory details, and ‘intuition' to see
patterns, make connections and interpret
meaning.
Appreciating behavioral distinctiveness: People and preferences

15.
Making use of distinctiveness in preference
to deal with complexity
There is great variety of behavior within the three categories
of preferences, depending on which position on each of the
three bi-polar scales the person’s behavior is plotted. The
majority of people will not be extreme, demonstrating a close
balance – as such they can be more difficult to read.
Every person has the ability to use either side of the bi-polar
scales, although we will all have preferences for one side
more than the other – most of the time.
When people with different preferences work together, they
can compliment each other.
In complexity, distinctiveness in motivations and preferences can be an asset – or a liability

16.
Individual competence vs. collective competence
“We learned that individual
expertise did not distinguish
people as high performers. What
distinguished high performers
were larger and more diversified
personal networks.”
“Engineers are roughly five times
more likely to turn to a person for
information as to an impersonal
source such as a database.”
Cross, Rob et.al.
The Hidden Power of Social Networks.
Boston: Harvard Business School
Press, 2004

17.
Most organizations are obsessed with individual performance.
But individual performance is actually a myth
Individual performance is not just overrated.
It simply doesn't exist, in organizations.
Why? Because value, or results, never arise
from individual action, but from interaction
between various individuals, or within teams.
A sales person only does part of the sale –
the other parts are being done by people
who may call themselves back office staff,
production and procurement staff,
accountants and HR professionals.
Because interdependency is in
organizations, trying to define individual
targets, or to measure individual
performance, leads to deception. Appraisals
of individual performance can only have a
de-spiriting and de-motivating effect on
people and damage team spirit.

18.
People communicate & connect in wildly different manners.
About the “archetypes” of communicators
Hubs draw information and broadcast it
Gatekeepers carefully manage information flows
Pulsetakers great observers of people
Karen Stephenson, Quantum Theory of Trust.
Harlow: Pearson Education Ltd, 2005
Connectors exchange information with many people
Mavens invest more time in people
Salesmen masters of interpersonal communication
Malcolm Gladwell, The Tipping Point.
Boston: Back Bay Books, 2002
It is not important which of these concepts is “true” or “better”:
There is potential in making use of social patterns and these varied ways of acting.
Make use of them, or ignore them at your peril!

19.
What makes people complex: putting it all together
An individual's behavior is shaped by motives,
preferences and competencies. Motives as
personal characteristics are quite stable over time
– they describe how important certain goals are
for the individual. Preferences, by contrast, can
partly evolve during the course of a lifetime -
depending on environment, challenges and
personal goals. Motives and preferences,
combined, influence our interest to acquire certain
competencies: There are abilities that are present
or that can be learned. Competencies, thus, are
directly related to learning.
As we saw, only behavior is easily and readily
observable. It is still quite easy to describe an
individual's competencies. With a little more effort
yet, preferences can be mapped and described.
Proper identification of someone's motives require
even more effort and delicacy. Human nature
Behavior (visible)
Competencies
Preferences
Motives
Nature
cannot be observed at all: it is a matter of conviction, or part of the social theories that we
hold. Problem is: observing behavior seduces us to (mis)judge others´ competencies, motives,
or even their nature. An organization fit for complexity requires more reflection!

21.
“The idea of “chunking”: a group of items is perceived as a single “chunk”.
The chunk’s boundary is a little like a cell membrane or a national border. It
establishes a separate identity for the cluster within. According to context, one
may wish to ignore the chunk’s internal structure or take it into account.”
Hofstadter/Douglas. Gödel, Escher, Bach. New York: Basic Books, 1979
Forming teams
We call the individual chunk a cell, and its boundary
the cell membrane.
We call the cluster of cells (the system), a cell-structure network.
We call the system's boundary or membrane the sphere of activity.

22.
Design principle "Alpha":
Groups are uni-functional, or functionally divided.
“Similar Individuals who work next to each other, in
parallel”, eventually competing against each other
Organizing the work: Common forms of team segmentation –
and where the difference lies
Design principle
"Beta":
Teams are cross-
functional,
or functionally
integrated.
“Diverse individuals
who work inter-
connected, with
each other”-
individuals who
commit to work
together to reach a
common goal

24.
Making use of social pressure
1. Let people identify with a small group.
2. Give them shared responsibility for shared goals.
3. Make all information open and transparent to the team.
4. Make performance information comparable across teams.
Social pressure, used right: far more powerful than hierarchy, no damaging side-effects.

25.
Ultimately, organizing for complexity and
self-organization is always about
empowering teams…
… not about empowering individuals
Self-organization must be team-based
The empowerment movement of the 1990´s also missed this point.

26.
A seeming paradox: Giving up power and decentralizing
decision-making back to teams actually increases status
> Low, or average performance > High, or superior performance
Success is not a zero-sum game.

28.
The difference between a “department” and a “cell”
Design principle "Alpha":
A department implies functional
differentiation and thus the grouping
of functional specialists - marketers
with marketers, sales people with sales
people, etc., all of which have to be
coordinated horizontally. Business
processes cross different departments.
Result: groups of people working in
parallel, not teams
Design principle "Beta":
A cell implies functional integration, or
cross-functional teams. Coordination
occurs laterally, among peers.
Business processes flow within teams.
Result: actual teams of people working
for and with each other
Sales Back office
Business team 1
Business team 2
Business team 3
Product
management
Complex markets require decentralization, combined with market-like coordination.

30.
The dominant mindset turned into a problem:
To imagine organizations as pyramids is a misguided metaphor
Design principle "Alpha":
The organization as a bureaucratic
hierarchy, steered by managers who
are always in control
Managers commanding/controlling a
pyramid of “followers” from above is
not a smart way to organize. Most of
us sense that, intuitively: Our
experience from practice contradicts
that this can actually work.
This remains, however, the dominant
mindset in companies, since the
development of management theory
about a century ago. When we speak
of “management”, we usually refer to
techniques, tools and models aimed
at improving, optimizing, or fixing
organizations as command-and-
control pyramids.

31.
Design principle "Beta":
The organization as an inter-
connected, living network, steered by
market forces. Nobody is in control.
Everybody is in charge.
A smarter and more useful way to
look at organizations is to see them as
a network. This is not only more
aligned with science than the
mechanistic “pyramid” dogma, but it
is also by far closer to reality, and in
several ways.
Because organizations are in fact:
• Networks of individuals
(through Informal Structure) and
• Networks of value-creating teams
(through Value Creation Structure).
Let's take a closer look at these
concepts.
A better metaphor: The organization as a multi-layered network

32.
The workplace is networked: The organization´s
informal structure. Based on individual relationships
Informal Structures emerge
out of human interaction. In
any social group. Informal
Structure by itself is neither
good, nor bad. It simply is.
Most social phenomena arise
from informal structure:
Gossip. Networking.
Socializing. Politics. Group
think. Conspiracies. Factions,
coalitions & clans. Resistance
to change. Response to
crises. Peer pressure.
Solidarity. Bullying. You name
it. Fact is: Informal structures
are powerful.

33.
The workplace is networked: The organization's
value creation structure, based on team interaction
In an organization, value-creation
flows from the inside-out.
Value creation is never the result of
individual action: It is a team-based
process of working interactively,
“with-one-another-for-each-other”.

34.
The workplace is doubly networked:
Putting together informal and value creation structures
You will instead care a lot
about value creation streams,
and on supporting peer
pressure and emergent
networking patterns.
Organizational robustness
comes from the quality and
quantity of the inter-
connections between humans
and teams – not from rules,
bosses, or standards.
Understanding organizations as
value creation networks, under-
fed by informal structures, and
not as command-and-control
pyramids, you will stop caring
much about formal hierarchy
(which is actually “trivial”, from
the point of view of complexity
thinking).

35.
To gain a better understanding of value creation, it is helpful
to understand the distinction between center, and periphery
Center
Market
Periphery

36.
The periphery: the only part of the organization
with market contact
Center
Market
Periphery

37.
The center: no direct market contact.
The periphery isolates the center from the market
Center
Market
Periphery

39.
2 Information
4 Command
Solving the complexity dilemma, through decentralization
2 Decision
Center
Market
Periphery
Serves the
periphery,
if needed!
Is in charge!
1 Impulse
3 Reaction
Client
Design principle “Beta”:
Decentralized decision-making,
sense-and-respond
In dynamic markets, the way out of
the control dilemma is consequent
decentralization, or devolution, of
decision-making, which becomes far
more effective: This way, decisions
are taken where interaction with and
learning from the market occurs. The
roles of center and periphery change
dramatically.

40.
Part 5.
How to transform your organization into a
complexity-robust network and how to turn
“Beta” into the dominant mindset
“Organize for Complexity“ - BetaCodex Network White Paper No. 12 & 13

41.
Designing an organization as a decentralized network
To turn your organization into a decentralized
cell-structure, or to build a new organization as
such a network, one must understand the
elements, or building blocks, of such a design.
Four elements are necessary:
• a boundary, or sphere of activity
• network cells (with a distinction between
central and peripheral cells)
• connecting strings between network
cells, and, finally,
• market pull – connections with the
external market
No line structures. No functions. No
departments. No shared services. No divisions.
No centralized staff. This is a different, and far
more effective way of defining structure, in
complexity.

43.
The sphere of activity
Organization & Teams
Market
Self-organization requires that the system is
surrounded by a containing boundary. This condition
defines the “self“ that will be developed during the
self-organizing process.
The containing boundary has the role to direct self-
organization towards value-creation.
The elements of the sphere should be put down in
writing, e.g. in a “Letter to Ourselves”, a “Manifesto”
or a “Culture Book”.

45.
Value-creation flows from the inside out.
Market-pull does the steering.
Center
Market
Periphery
A cell-structure network gains stability and
resilience not through hierarchical power
relationships, or through “resistance to
pressure”, but through the “pull” that comes
from the external market, and from the
complex human relationships it nourishes
internally. Market dynamics do the steering.
Sounds simple? It is.

46.
From value-creating teams to value-creating network
We call the links between network cells strings.
We call the links of peripheral cells
with the market market pull.

47.
Market pull: Only peripheral cells have direct links to the
market and can thus deliver value externally

48.
Step 1 in drafting your organization as a value-flow network:
Start from the outside-in, by thinking about peripheral cells first
Peripheral cells should be:
• As autonomous as possible in their decision-
making, functioning like “mini-enterprises”,
responsible for a business, holistically
• Contain no less than 3 team members each,
with cross-functional capacities
• Measuring their own results

49.
Step 2: Design central cells as internally
value-creating supply units
The role of central cells is to
deliver value to peripheral
teams that these cannot create
themselves.
Their role is to serve, not to
rule the periphery. It is not to
execute power, or control.
Ideally, these teams sell their
services to peripheral cells
through priced transactions,
and on an internal market.
Examples for how to do this
exist at companies such as
Handelsbanken, dm-drogerie
markt, and Morning Star.

51.
Step 3: Iterate – involve many, many people
in the process of designing a full network structure
Usually, you will have to go through a
few iterations to arrive at a value-
structure design that is not only better
than the previous formal structure, but
also as decentralized as possible,
scalable and viable in the long-term.
More often than not, an organization
will make adjustments after some
initial learning with the new design.

52.
Individuals and “portfolios of roles”:
A normality in decentralized network structures
In a decentralized network structure, “positions” cease to
exist. “Roles” rule. Individuals usually are not confined to
one network cell alone, but will act in different cells, filling
in different roles in different parts of the network.
Consequently, everyone keeps “juggling with roles“, all
the time.
An example: A person with the official title of ”CFO“ on
the business card would play a role in a central cell when
serving other teams of the network, but be part of a
peripheral cell when dealing with a bank. The same
person might also fulfill additional roles within the
organization that might have little or nothing to do with
finance.

54.
Promote a result-based achievement culture
Make team performance visible (results only!), to nurture a
team-based “winning culture”.
Never, ever, attempt to manage individual performance,
though, as individual performance simply does not exist.
Stop managing working time or controlling individual
behavior - “behaviorism” has been proven wrong a long
time ago!
What works, instead: The most adaptive and successful
organizations focus on nurturing a culture that highlights
the importance of “fun, while winning in the marketplace.”
You cannot have that controlling individual's behavior.

55.
Promote self-development and mastery
You cannot and need not develop people. People can
do that on their own. An organization, however, can
create and should create conditions and forums for
self-development, and it can also take care that
leaders get out of the way by not trying to control or
contain self-development.
Individual mastery is the only viable problem-solving
mechanism in complexity.
We usually tend to overrate talent, and underrate
systematic, disciplined learning. We tend to overrate
class-room training, and underrate learning that is
integrated into the actual work life. We tend to overrate
formal instruction and underrate inspirational
interaction, informal networking and communities of
practice.
Training budgets only serve for control – not for
learning. So scrap them and make learning resources
available to those who learn, on demand.

57.
Focus leadership work on the system. Not on individual people.
Self-organization in complex systems is
natural. With a containing boundary and
external markets in place, that should
provide for the steering.
Leadership, thus, has to be work focused
on improving the system, on making the
market palpable inside the organization
through transparency and dialogue, and
on allowing for self-organization and
social pressure to function.
Work on the system, not the people.

58.
Practice radical transparency
Information is to entrepreneurial responsibility
what oxygen is to the human body.
In an organization, without fast and easy access to
information – including that on team performance and
financial results or the organization – teams and
individuals will be walking around in darkness.
Transparency is like turning the light on.
Transparency makes ambition, a healthy spirit of
competitiveness, and group or peer pressure, possible.
Having “open books“ is part of that. If you find yourself
thinking about possible ”dangers“ of opening the books,
then you probably haven't thought the topic through, yet.
Then it's time to do that, now.

61.
More reading and resources
For more about organizational structures, see our white paper no. 11.
For more about cell-structure design: see our white papers no. 8, 9 and 11.
For more about “relative“ performance management: see our white paper no. 10.
For more about problem-solving in complexity, see our white paper no. 7.
For more about the BetaCodex, see our white papers no. 5 and 6.
All papers can be accessed from this page: www.betacodex.org/papers
You are free to use & share this material. If you make use of this material in your work,
please let us know –we would love to learn about that!
Translations of this paper in French, Dutch, Spanish and Portuguese are available.
We welcome your suggestions to improve future versions of this paper.
Thanks to Pia Steinmann, who crafted all the illustrations used in this paper,
and to Jurgen Appelo, whose drawings originally inspired it.

63.
www.organizeforcomplexity.com
The “Organize for Complexity” book
English - paperback
German edition
English - ebook
Turkish edition
with Selcuk Alimdar
Portuguese edition

64.
betacodex.org
Get in touch with us for more information about leading BetaCodex transformation,
and ask us for a keynote or a workshop proposal.
Make it real!
Niels Pflaeging
contact@nielspflaeging.com
nielspflaeging.com
New York, Wiesbaden
Valérya Carvalho
mvaleriacarv@gmail.com
LinkedIn
São Paulo
Silke Hermann
silke.hermann@nsights-group.de
insights-group.de
Wiesbaden, Berlin, New York
Lars Vollmer
me@lars-vollmer.com
lars-vollmer.com
Hannover, Stuttgart